psychoanaleesis

Right... I have this question and I tried searching Rand's lexicon for it but it is not quite connected (just merely mentions). Where do dreams or dreaming fall under Objectivism? What is its definition and does it hold some degree of importance as did other philosophies or systems placed on it? I gather that dreams are tied somehow to the subconscious and the details that falls below our conscious grasp to tackle clearly. However, how come our dreams often not connected to what has happened to us (at least not that we know of)?

Quite right, when I say "may" I only placed 2 cents on what I said because no two Objectivist minds are alike unless one affirms it. Would she even like pop(ular) songs?

Adam: Yes, I was about to say that only, I thought it may be unfounded so I refrained. Now, I see what you mean. Yes, like leaves in autumn, they do seem to set the cold wind ablaze especially when the sunlight hits their hair just right. Boy, we'll need a few sessions before I get to know how you make those cognitive jumps. Hahaha.

???? Natural or dyed? What do you mean by this? Only natural redheads count. Hahaha! True enough. Red heads are almost impossible to find in this country (discounting foreigners). But still, what ever could you mean?? Shall I just drop this pursuit?

I'd defend my store with a gun. I was thinking of a store with no staff being over-run with looters who would get everything no matter what you did, loot or not. As for me, with baby starving I'd grab what I could, make a list and compensate the owners later. However, I'd have food at home so I wouldn't loot so the owner would end up with nothing. Sin loi. There was a case, I forget most details, where there was no staff so the customers manned the registers and gave the money collected to the owner. Nothing was stolen. All sales were accounted for. They may not have actually used the registers and totaled it all up by hand. I don't even remember what kind of store it was, but it was like 20 years ago. --Brant Wow. Then the owner should rightfully compensate them (since they were temporary employees)... very nice story

Think for yourself and express your thoughts (with everything implied) honestly.

Miss independent by Ne-yo may sound appealing for Rand (as far as lyrics go). Reminds me of Hank's affection for Dagny or at least Dagny.

???? Natural or dyed? What do you mean by this?

Brant: I think you have a good point there. If that supermarket still has an owner who is alive and still claims his right over the stocks found there, I'd ask him what is his price and see if I can offer anything to get the things I value. Besides, if you really are concerned of natural disasters, then you should have stocked up yourself before it happened. The primary question being: Why are they poor in the first place? Did they never care to get out of the way they live? I presume that they are comfortable with being moochers though. When you see these creatures barricading the streets with corpses just because the red cross can't give them more, then you know your are dealing with cannibals. They never had any realistic chance of surviving for a long time without outside aid. The only thing that's keeping them alive is the regard for human life by those who live but they do not care to show any form of gratitude at least even through civility. They think it's for free? Absurd.

Right! You're not getting it! Realizing this can be an important first step, GS! Helpfully, JR Wait, he's not even sure that he's getting it... but, if it floats your boat GS, just make sure to get some long-term sealant instead of those corks. Lol. How about that movie Castaway with Hanks? Sure, it has its moments of absurdities but he applied his knowledge with morality and thus he had a fighting chance of surviving and eventually returning home. I don't recommend Lord of the Flies if we're using Rand's philosophy as well as theories in human development as children are still acquiring knowledge and what they have are just basics of the world around them (although in the book it is amazing that they were able to survive for that long). Let me point it out using Rand's examples as posted by Xray: "You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico...n/morality.html Morality works like Rock (a piece?) suitable living quarters - Yes or No? Sand as suitable bodily protection from elements - Yes or No? Fruits (still fresh and clinging) fall from tree by itself - Yes or No? Harvest tomorrow without planting seeds (for reason of proximity and ease) - Yes or No? Morality lies in the "Either-Or" i.e. the choice. The number of these "either-or" situations can be extended to an infinite depending on the capacity of that individual but learn that every man has the choice, no matter what his level of intelligence is. However, a man can choose to switch this off as well but he better get ready for the consequence as it is very difficult to switch it back on again especially if this dependency becomes a habit. When a man is indolent, he becomes dependent on other men to guide him while in reality, he is but a fool who thinks "they will always be there for me". No one can make claim that he will always be by your side, so better rely on your independent judgment. The fine line you see by using your reason to discriminate what's good and bad for you will be the one to determine how long you will live without having anyone to rely on. There is an old folk tale here about this lazy bastard who waited for a fruit to fall in his mouth instead of picking it. He waited and of course it did fall down because of gravity. However, the fruit it turns out is starting to rot (or is already rotten) and is infested with maggots. *I think he'll die of typhoid soon enough... The morale of the story: You get exactly what you deserve. You reap what you sow. You cannot escape the laws identity and causality.

Peter: I don't think so as well. Since religion is a type of philosophy attempting to explain the universe to man or the relationship of the two, your sentences could be restated as a person who was born into a certain religion (as was his family I suppose) and then grew up to depart from mysticism. I am tired and won't take anymore of this superstitious bull... I know for a fact... and I can do so much better without the fear of and practice of... So I'm getting out... I think that one who grew up in mystic crap but saw through the shenanigan of religion decides to get out because it's a waste of time. The system is not working anymore and is in fact, trying to bring everyone down. In the case of astronauts, what they must have seen and felt is similar to when you stand on high ground and see from a distance that everything is within one's grasp. Also, I think it was mentioned there that they see the mark of man so clearly stamped on this planet that it was an emotional affirmation of, "Yes, it is within my grasp and it has and always will be..." As for drugs you are correct yet again, it is the use of psychedelic drugs that distort one's perception of reality and makes them more prone to believe in mysticism than they were as idiots. Those idiots who only seek shortcuts to knowledge are the masses that subscribe to those offering a shortcut through the forest - straight to a cliff. The only requirement: blindfold yourself and let them guide you. It is interesting to note that Rand saw Jesus (or whatever his actual name was) as an example (metaphorical if not literal) of an egoist whose message was distorted by his disciples which I vaguely remember he called "dull" more than once? No wonder I imagine John Galt as an allusion to this person. I'm still trying to discover the process how I came to that conclusion but at least I know that a trustworthy person already got there.

This is funny. You won't find any based on our recommendations. Best bet, you should review a certain cartoon that you like, that upholds your standards and demonstrates your values then let your kids watch them.

I'm annoyed by those sorts of people who know nothing but to nurture hate and envy in their souls... I haven't seen such barefaced lies in quite a while. Peter, I agree on you with that 24-hour mini-series (because you shouldn't skip a beat of it!). Also, Jodie would make a fine Dagny Taggart (I don't like Jolie that much especially in characters who are required to do significant dialogues). On a related topic, I don't think the movie of the Fountainhead did justice to the book. It was so abridged that what happened there didn't made sense to me (since I was comparing it with the book) and especially if I was in the shoes of someone trying to understand Objectivism or Rand's work for the first time. Saving grace: Roark's Cortland trial.

I was taking a shower when I realized this: Even at their purpose, the mystics try to escape the law of identity and reverse the law of causality. That is, they do not mean anything or rather, nothing, nothing at all (blank-out phenomenon) Let's see...(tell me if I missed a spot) Money is a concrete representation of an abstraction of man's ability and competence. It refers to the product of man's reasoning mind i.e. from understanding reality and controlling it. *I'll use this later. These scum wants is not to gain anything from you but rather, destroy everything valuable to man's existence. Whether by using guilt, pity or force, they only desire nothingness. They want to exist like the men of the mind does but cowers in fear of what will happen when they assume independence but instead see nothing but loneliness and despair. For example: When they say equality, they don't mean equally rich or successful (since they cannot achieve it!) they want everyone to be miserable and helpless. When they say "loyalty", they don't mean following the steps of a competent man, they want you to give up independence. When they say they want (or need) your money, they don't really want to use it as a means to be happy, they just want you to feel incapable so you cannot go to work anymore. In the end, they want you to give up your competence as they are indolent moochers who cannot produce. They are incompetent. When they say they need your love, they do not mean your expression of your highest values or affection or tribute to glory... No, they want you to like their errors instead of the capacity to rise and learn from there. Whether a priest or a thug says these things (and many other bullshit) know that they are and will always be liars by nature. Also, I think that knowing their nature is far enough. We, the men of reason do not gain anything from delving into their madness. By acknowledging their requests, you give them equal footing. As Galt said what they seek is our consent, our affirmation that they exist. I, for one, retract that. Leave them to their own devices and see their nature when they shed their husks.

"A coin has three (3) sides." What do you or Shane means by this Adam? Since we are obviously talking about cuckoo and knuckleheads here, it would be quite helpful to at least apply some theories regarding their psychodynamics. I think, the phrase, "It takes one to know one..." is very helpful in this sense and Freud's theory came to mind but I shall not want to use this (anymore). Interview with a cult leader The link above is a clear example of a Mystic of the Spirit since it is a cult but I do see similarities between him (a witch doctor) and your common thug in a way that as far as I can see, they rely on Dishonesty and Indolence and Indifference (which I see are very intertwined). Dishonesty in the sense that in each step of logic, they attempt to screen out certain facts to make their reasoning coherent at the very least. Since they do not consciously know how they got there, they leave it at that and that is also how they present it. This is where indolence and indifference take cue as they simply don't care and they don't want to pursue the proper logical steps required to make a valid conclusion. What they do not know or fail to acknowledge (to some degree) is that the only kind that fall for their tricks enough to subscribe to their way of thinking are people similar to them. However, even when they band together, their "collective efforts" cannot still make sense of what's around them (reality), much less control it. This is where the men of reason fall victim to. They acknowledge the fact that they are fallible but that they can improve on and on, understanding and truly controlling reality around them. At the same time, they extend this to others, believing that they as Man have the same nature. This kind of optimism is their downfall since they trust too eagerly on what they know to be decent and similar human beings when in fact, they are not. At this point forward, these mystics have an inkling of how men of reason operates to some extent. Since my hypothesis is that they do use logic but try to escape the law of identification at one step or another. They realize that these men are what they "need" and for some reason their appeals (emotion, force) work as long as they (mystics) make it look like they are grateful for what these seemingly "gods of reality" can do and share with them. Nonetheless, given the nature of these creatures they start to want what those men have but it is already too late. They find out that they cannot, because of their long enduring habits, fulfill this desire. Their desire turns into frustration and into envy. I should like to expound but I can't quite place a firm grasp this abstract sludge yet (or I subconsciously don't want to). Please, do try to continue or refute this train of thought.

I do not know or care who or what Hickman was, he is irrelevant to my points. I do not believe, Ayn needs any defense. She was never perfect, she had flaws then, has flaws now and will have flaws in the future, So what, I do not expect perfection from my teachers. This last quote is debatable. I believe there is a part of many of us who believe they could reorder society better than as it exists today. None of us can know whether she thought that she could be, or was, above the law. Let me ask you a question? When a country becomes papered with laws from one end to the other shouldn't an honest man become an "outlaw?" What did you think of the Seven Samurai? Or, the American remake The Magnificent Seven? Or, even El Camino? Or Boondock Saints? Adam Excellent points Adam. As I said before, she saw someone in a certain context and that holds true. It's her right. I've only watched Samurai Seven. Revolting. Except for it's entertainment value, it only portrayed man as cattle. Even the 'noble' spirit of samurais was twisted in that movie. Thank you for reminding me that an honest man needs no defense against banal hostilities of this kind.

Adam, you said, "This was a driven person, I wonder if she even considered anything beyond unbowed...unrepentant...a fully actualized man who was above the herd." Adam: Quite the contrary, Hickman is actually a person who did not have the courage to face his conflicts and instead projected those to individuals that he never knew nor did him any harm. If I were to speculate, that when he killed that girl to replace (in his mind) another person entirely. In defense of Rand, she merely took certain aspects of Hickman to be presented in her novel "The Little Street" and thus, it would be called art and not fanaticism. Much like when I say I admire Hannibal Lecter's insight to human behavior and psyche (however fictional that may be) and decided to write about the possibility of knowing yourself and other person's motives clearly. Rand also once liked Nietzsche but for only the resoluteness of his character. Later on, she checked her premises, knew that she was mistaken and moved on. Rand is not above the law. Any law of man would have to come from certain premises that refer to self-evident facts (natural laws?) and everything must be inferred from there. I think she wanted to re-write whimsical "rules" such as trial by publicity. Sadly, Rand did not come to know this killer personally, she probably relied instead on media like her Wynand papers. If she did, she would not have used that coward as part of her character's psyche.

Then how does one account for the increasing distance between galaxies? Only a blast that is presently continuing could have that effect.

Wait, how would you sell the idea Michael? What voodoo jedi mind-trick would you use that hasn't been offered out there on the shortcut to happiness/salvation market?? Remember, copyrights and patents... Damn, I could be sued for mentioning voodoo and jedi mind-trick...

Jeffrey: Indeed you are correct. If 'God' (or at least the Christian version) were to be omniscient, present, potent and yadah, yadah, yadah... Then God could have at least get his interpreters get the story straight as he would foresee that men with independent minds would begin to question the existence of 'God'. I see my flaw in assuming that I am looking for something accurate that is only a mere reference to something else and so on without having the unequivocal evidences at hand. As for the book, I'd like to read it. It seems like a refreshing take from all the nonsense has been drilled into my head and retarding my intellectual growth. While I was writing my post I had a funny notion that people like Moses were so gullible (or delusional) that their neighbors play tricks on them like setting a bush on fire and calling his name from somewhere hidden from view.... funny, but it happens. I see atheism having its merits for it uses reason fully and thereby liberating one's mind of fear from a supposedly unquestionable being and essentially expanding ones morality. Thank you.

quote It's not something that should be emulated by her idiot followers who have it twisted around in their angry little skulls that Rand's worst moments were her best. J end quote It's precisely because they are idiots that you shouldn't advice them as they will not consider any other fact like say, Ayn Rand is fallible since like us, she only uses her reason to (ideally) the best way she can. Probably in their own idiotic way they are thinking, "Ayn Rand is the Messiah!!" Pfft... That's bigotry for you. I have genuine respect for Rand and her philosophy and thinking, but praising a man who kills another for no good reason is utterly sickening. However, it is probable that she couldn't find a hero who can represent her ideals to this extreme. Well, she can admire whoever she wants to and express her opinions about them (based on the facts that she perceives at least)... it's a right.

You have some peculiar expressions like [force a person to choose to see any other "realities"] and I'm often not sure what you mean. I suspect English is not your first language and I appreciate your efforts to communicate. I am saying that statistics show that smoking is a cause among many. I am not a cancer researcher and I don't know all the details so as an "average person" I rely on the work of others to base my decisions. We humans have to do this because we don't have time to know everything, we have to specialize our knowledge and work together. GS, you are a skilled proofreader. You noticed my verbal nuances before I did. Sadly, that is not going to change my stand since you never attempted to refute any of them. For that favor (which I never asked but I feel obliged to return) I meant to say: "you cannot force a person to see any other realities..." Neither am I a cancer researcher but I won't ask the next guy what to do with my life as I may not know everything, but at least I know up to what I have now. And what will you do if you met a cancer researcher or an oncologist who smokes? That would be ironical... Everyone, if GS should turn out to be a open-source editing software or AI (which I'm starting to suspect), let me know, I'd offer no more than $5 for that technology. Thanks!

Very clear. I accept this premise.Is the George there the same person as the one we got here? I'll say that I admire his thinking. Thank you and thank you George. If I were there when Pascal stated his argument, I'd say this: It's because Christianity/religion precisely opposes reason. It dictates that I should never question the odds which you present. Suppose I take your word for it, which is very irrational, I might add... If I am to become a Christian and there is no God, then what the hell have I been doing spending my time in church for?? I could have slept on Sundays or done any frigging thing that I wanted! Can you give me my time back? I'll want a refund you bastard! LOL.

Interesting, interesting... I always thought Rand's ideas always contain a hint of being Anti-social or to be more exact, having Anti-social Personality... I wanted to raise the notion of a serial killer being one gruesome embodiment of her ideals gone south. Serial killers (provided they are psycho/sociopaths) generally use incomplete and twisted logic (with more of impulsiveness) to guide their behavior in the sense that once they made a connection, e.g. "I plan to kill this person..." they cannot stop themselves from obsessing towards the fulfillment of that desire whatever future consequences might be. I think statistically, America has got the most number of serial killers or a person having higher chances of going psycho/sociopath precisely because of individualism where you have to choose what's best for you but forgetting the fact that you should avoid deciding for other people except by persuading them for their consent or assent. In connection to Ayn Rand, the hero Howard Roark could be classified as anti-social based on APA's description of it because he exhibited signs/symptoms thereof such as when he blew up that building near the end of the story. ASPD description.Now, in the story, it's clear that Roark did initiate the use of force... justifiably but not legally. He destroyed his work, it was his right, but realistically, he could have killed someone, an innocent bystander... a scenario of idolizing Roark in that particular situation is not rationally practical or palatable. I don't know what Rand might be thinking when she decided to like that serial killer but it should not and cannot reflect on each Objectivist or to be more specific: Rational individuals who bought her ideas. If I were to speculate, maybe she got so overwhelmed by one of Hickman's characteristics that it blinded her from her stand of "not initiating the use of force". If this is a fact, then, all the more clearly Rand echoes her stand in her ideals that is: Use your independent minds. I like the ideas Rand presents. I am a rational individual capable of anything I so desire within my rights. If evidence comes to light that Aristotle murdered someone just because, would it disprove his achievements and insights too? Would, or rather, could you abandon his logic which proves to be the only way to perceive reality? At most, one can say Rand lied about being consistent in practicing her philosophies but it does not follow that what she stated is wrong altogether. It's ad hominem gentlemen, you know it's a flawed argument so how it will bite a rational man?

I've been chewing on this idea for quite a bit and I've just found my stand on the matter of 'God' existing as a fact. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is: No. God does not exist since the concept of God is based on a supernatural entity belonging to the supernatural realm that he cannot exist in natural realm. It is because I have never experienced conversing to a talking, burning bush or having been able to see a blindingly illuminant humanoid figure with its back turned on me inside a tent as Moses supposedly have experienced based on the mytho-historical records known as the Holy Scriptures (Quran, Bible, Torah or similar ones) How accurate are they? Who was recording these events as they happened? Most certainly those were not a first hand accounts. Seemingly interesting trump card(s) in this cosmological game of cards is men like Jesus which, although based on witness accounts, serves as an entity representing 'God' in natural, therefore humanly knowledgeable form but still can create 'supernatural' phenomenon e.g. water-wine thereby bridging supernatural to natural realm. Since the latest version of the Bible (New Testament) is the closest that I can speculate on, it would prove that the concept of 'God' has a concrete reference point i.e. Jesus or some other men that can replicate the same phenomenon that he can. The question is that do we have any scientific evidence of a Jesus/counter-part figure ever existing? Could we at least use a reliable record in human history that could serve as an anchor from which a debate or search would start upon? I'm also thinking whether this will be a productive endeavor which ever way it ends... Will that end have a significant effect to the lives of at least rational individuals who still believe in 'God' as a concept or otherwise? I say this because religion and similar philosophies and its fanatic constituents will just close their eyes on the facts, scream and die. On a side note, just having the very word 'supernatural' in the human (English) vocabulary entails that some influence (I vote for Plato as its representative) has been passed down just like what Rand says about 'common sense' being an Aristotelian influence. Just want to share that. I know that the case I present is very murky indeed and needs a lot of refinement to state it correctly but I propose that we slice through this with reason and logic and let's see how far this topic can be discussed with present evidences to start off with premises. So, gentlemen, shall we?